McCain still getting $58k/year in government disability payment? WTF!!

First, I think the disability program is an important part of our country but I thought it was for people who were truly disable and unable to actually work or can work but have limited funds to pay for disability upkeep. I realize that McCain served some challenging times during the Vietnam war, but this is a guy who not only makes $250K/year WITH full & complete benefits coverage BUT he is also married to an extremely wealthy woman to boot.

And what really pisses me off is McCain is more than happy to take the $58k a year but he'll then vote again GI Bill rights and other benefits for our GI who could clearly use that $58k a year.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/why-is-mccain-getting-58000-year-in.html

Why is McCain getting $58,000 a year in disability income?
John Aravosis (DC) · 6/08/2008 12:07:00 PM ET · Link



First off, I find it fascinating that John McCain, who is refusing to vote for the GI Bill for our troops because "it's too generous," is himself getting $58,000 a year, tax-free, from the US government for his military service. Had McCain been getting that amount every year since Vietnam, that would total $2,000,000 for the man who isn't into overgenerous government. I just find that interesting.

His staff responded with the classic "he was tortured for his country." Yeah, we get it. The torture card. It's to McCain what 9/11 was to Giuliani's candidacy - the never-ending name-drop. Though what McCain's staff actually said was downright, um, we're being nice to Clinton now, so I won't say Clintonian. Here's the quote:

McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. "Tortured for his country -- that is how he acquired his disability," Salter said.
Technically? What does that mean? Usually, it means that under the strict reading of the law, you're covered, but in fact it's kind of a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation - that's what "technically" means. It's called parsing, which is something you do to "technically" claim something is true, when on its face it really isn't. So is McCain "technically" disabled, and taking $58,000 a year tax free from the government, or is he actually disabled? I would imagine there are other solders who are actually disabled who could use the money. And if he is actually disabled, just how disabled is he?

What's his salary as a US Senator? How much is his wife worth?

His life is far from a hardship.

isn't there a way to opt out of disability or at least some salary cutoff limits like if you're a US Senator with a sugarmama wife that is worth millions then perhaps we should use those taxdollars for someone who is disabled and needs the help!

but he doesn't accept his governor's salary.

I really hope that this gets serious media play.

but he has no problem accepting donations and gifts.

Thanks for the examples on our side.

:thumbsup:

Out of his own pocket, which is something they all should do if they can. Hill staffers make way too little to live in this city.

As someone with his eye on the presidency, you'd think he would have thought looking good was more important than $58k/year when he has so much money.

...into some non-profit organization that would use it to help out troops. Perhaps he is and we're not aware of it. But he could have setup some local non-profit that could do something like help pay for prescriptions for local Arizona vets. That would have made him look great in the eyes of the voters.

And speaking of greed....

and the piss and moan about a veteran we don't like getting benefits for his time as a POW. There are allot of reasons not to like McCain his disability benefit is not one of them..

legislation that makes it better for our soldiers and even criticizes that we're being 'too generous' to our soldiers.

He lost that free pass when he dissed our current soldiers and refused to support solid & important legislation like the GI Bill. McCain should be the one leading the fight in making things better for our soldiers but instead he's lockstep in line with the Bush Regime of using & abusing our solders and then neglecting the soldiers after they are no longer functional to us in war.

"We have every single right to piss & moan when the disable vet in question votes against legislation that makes it better for our soldiers"

We can piss and moan abut his vote, point out the hypocrisy but *not* the fact he gets it... Thats the line to look out for; dont say 'I think hes too rich to get the benefit' say 'I think he is a hypocrite for not making sure all veterans can get treated like him'

--

"He lost that free pass when he dissed our current soldiers"

No, he lost dignity and more than a few votes when he did that but the benefit accorded to him is not for outstanding moral character or consistency its for being a pow and being tortured (and the physical consequences for that) that has not changed.

and 4 years later I'm going to get smacked for being critical. Although the big difference here is at least John Kerry fights to make things better for our troops but McCain does not.

It's unethical that he accepts it. It's greedy. It's his right to accept it, but the fact that he does is digusting and he needs to be held accountable for it.

I do think he's a hypocrite for accepting the money.

There are a lot of things to go after McCain for but this isn't one of them. It will just reinforce the media's image of him as a "war hero" and gain him some sympathy when the media goes into detail about what his captors actually did to him.

I'd also be willing to bet that McCain and his wife gave more than 58K to charity last year. He'll be able to claim that he give a large amount of that money to charity if it gets brought up.

if he was so 'disabled'?

I don't begrudge a Vet the honor and dignity commensurate with their service, but this glitch really pisses me off.

There are MANY Vets who are severely disabled, who cannot even begin to take care of themselves financially, and they sure as hell could make use of that $58,000 per year- tax free...

As for your assertion that they probably donated as much to 'cindy's charity- so what? It is her pet project- I'd sooner my tax dollars go to those who are really in need of the funds- the very funds that McCain voted to DENY the men and women he'd be willing to keep sending off to Iraq for the next 100yrs.

peace~

he could physically fly and airplane and pass a Navy fitness test (what Marines call a physical fitness test).

Don't confuse the "physically disabled" term the military uses with the civilian version of "physically disabled."

The military version means that you do not have the same physical abilities you had when you joined. This doesn't always prevent you from to continuing to serve but it does affect your ability to live a normal life.

as an example: There is a Marine Gunnery Sergeant who lost his leg below the knee after being shot by a sniper. He recovered and wanted to stay on active duty. He proved to the Marine Corps he could still pass a PFT and preform his job. While he is still on active duty, when he leaves the military he will receive "military disability" for his lost leg.

playing the devil's advocate here- but I'd venture to say that MOST (if not all) career Military people leave the service with less physical abilities than when they enlisted.

My father was drafted and served in the Army on the ground in Germany in WWII- He returned with less physical abilities than when he went in with, but he went to college, and learned what he needed to be able to provide for himself and his family.-

peace~

the government forms etc to get disability. I hurt my knee on a jump and my ankle during PT. I went to the VA after I got out and was amazed at how much paperwork and follow up effort it took to file a claim.

I think most military members just give up for minor stuff and say its not worth the effort.

what we need to go after him is on the fact that he gets this money and yet he is willing to cut benefits for our current vets from the Iraq/Aghanistan wars. He has not done one thing to help these soldiers and yet he still receives $58k a year from our government.

I think any current vet from Iraq/Aghan wars would love to get $58k disability from our government. Hell I think some of them would be happy if it was even half of that.

To me it appears pretty high. And higher than anyone would probably receive in civilian life.

In civilian life do those with disability receive it for life or are they converted over to Social Security/Medicare?

I don't know how much $ you get for different things.

58K does sound like a lot, but I don't have anything to compare that to.

He certainly opposed that GI bill, but he had a reason that I don't necessarily agree with (I believe he felt that it gave too much incentive for them to get out). Failing to pass any bill that increases troop and vet support does not make you anti-troop. His failing to vote for it did not deny any solider from getting benefits. He did support an alternative bill. His vote may not be popular, but it isn't anti-solider by any means.

There are far more things that McCain can be successfully attacked on. Trying to portray him as a greedy anti-troop candidate is dishonest and will backfire bigtime.

We shouldn't do a swift boat on this guy; we should never stoop that low. But I truly believe we have the right to point out the obvious - that he is collection a great deal of money and yet has shown a history of not providing the goods for our current vets.

ANd people keep forgetting a major part of the study they did on that GI Bill. Yes, they found something like 16% of our troops would not re-enlist if they knew they had done their time and could go to college. But the stuff that the Bush Regime didn't want to tell us was that same study on the GI Bill showed that it would also bring in just about the same numbers of new enlistees who would take advantage of the GI Bill if they knew they would have college paid for.

I'm not nor would I ever suggest going after McCain's war record even though repukes had no problem mocking Kerry's record including those conventioneers who wore band-aids with purple hearts on them (how pathetically low can you go). My concern is that we are taking care of our vets properly and the republicans & the Bush Regime seem to be hell bent on destroying these people who volunteered to protect us.

I think he could look inward and see this waste. Does someone who makes nearly $170,000 as a US senator need an additional $58K?

not a chance, its a loser issue to take it that way...

but if he really cared about saving the government money like he always says, then he should walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.

hubby is legally blind...used to get ssdi payments, but when he got a really good job after college, the disability dried up quicker than water evaporates

how he was 'dis-abled'.

If you want to create some kind of "heroic reward" it should be labeled as such, and NOT called 'disability'.


peace~

he sustained on active duty.

Military Disability is not like other disability payments civilians receive.

Let's say you join the military and serve out your obligation. During your time you became a paratrooper and learned to jump out of planes. On your last jump, let's say you have a bad landing and tear up your knee and dislocate your shoulder. You get treatment for them but the doctor says that you will never have full range of motion in both your knee and shoulder.

Since you sustained those injuries will on active duty in fulfillment of your job, the government pays you a "disability" since you lost "X" percentage of range of motion.

and before his retirement from the military in '81???

This 'payment' should NOT be refered to as 'disability'-

He was very able to do what was required of him after his return and recouperation.
I think that questioning him on his acceptance of 'disability' payments when he is functional and financially fit, while other Vets are struggling and suffering, is completely appropriate.

peace~

I'm no psychologist, but I do have some knowledge of PTSD.

McCain's rage, that seems to always linger under the surface--is a classic PTSD sign.

Furthermore, a telltale sign of PTSD, is when a trauma survivor "recreates" the initial trauma--in
order to work out unresolved pain. Since the emotion of the trauma is "unprocessed", it's as if the
person lives their life with that event still on going.

You see this in child-abuse survivors. They marry abusers. Their brains have unprocessed
emotions--and therefore a need to unravel those emotions. However, they aren't strong
enough to face the initial event--so they gravitate toward abusive situations.

What concerns me most about McCain, is his obsession with war, and playing war. He can't
wait to widen the Iraq war, and start a new one with Iran.

Again, I'm no doctor, but this is obvious PTSD stuff. McCain seeks war scenarios--in order
to get relief from the initial trauma--which he has yet to deal with.

Given his anger--I'd say he stuffed down a great deal of rage, and that's the emotion driving
him into more war. He's seeking revenge.

This man can't be at the helm until he has about 5 years of therapy.

This is really not a good line to pursue.

There are plenty of vets who actually need that money and aren't getting it.

McCain is like all Republicans. Money that he gets from the government is well earned, but money others get is welfare.

Think about this. John McCain has had socialized medicine from the military and government his entire life, even as a child. He is the poster boy for government benefits and free government paid health care.

execute the job of President is what they are apparently going for here.

Sounds like a hard row to hoe.

McCain can't lift his arms about his shoulders due to the treatment of his captors.

When he left the military, a medical doctor gave him a physical and stated that he had lost "X" percentage of mobility in his arms. A medical board decided that he should receive 58K a year for the loss of that ability.

While being able to lift your arms above your shoulders doesn't exclude you from being POTUS, it does affect your ability to have a normal life.

He is going to be in Tyson's Corner Today, I wish I could go I would ask him
My question is about unnecessary government spending. Do you think it's fair that you recieve 58,000 a year for disability, when you and your wife are worth over 100 million?

And what exactly is your disability? Is it mental? Do you feel to you are mentally qualifed to run for the POTUS in light of your "disability"?

Is this why you didn't want to support the GI bill, you didn't want it to cut into you funding?

do you think you owe the American Citzens some of the 2 million you have collected over the years? And how would you go about paying that back?

That comes from his treatment as a POW. This is a losing issue for us to raise.

So is his support for the Graham version of the GI Bill over the Webb GI Bill.

While I personally will benefit from the Webb GI Bill, I think it will end up hurting the military more than hurting it due to the drop in retention you will see in junior to middle NCO's.

Will do far more damage to the retention rate, than the promise of college.

I don't doubt you about the problem with his arms, but why doesn't his surrogates just say that?

Also John was released with 600 other POW's how much are they recieveing in Disability?

I found this on John's Race for Senate site. After reading this I don't understand how he can support Bush's war with a straight face

The Hanoi Hilton

In the early morning of October 26, 1967, just 3 months after the Forrestal disaster, Lt. Commander McCain departed for his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam. This one was particularly dangerous. McCain and his fellow pilots were targeting a power plant in the center of Hanoi.

As McCain was completing his bombing mission, a Soviet-made surface-to-air missile struck his plane, shearing off the right wing. McCain ejected as his plane spiraled violently to earth. The force of the ejection knocked him unconscious and both of his arms and one leg were broken.

He regained consciousness as he plunged into a lake near his bombing target. Quickly, an angry mob gathered, seeking retribution for the rain of bombs. Dragging him from the lake, they broke his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him repeatedly. They loaded McCain into a truck and delivered him to the infamous - and hated - "Hanoi Hilton."

Denied medical treatment for days, McCain's condition deteriorated badly. His fellow POW's, shocked at his appearance, thought McCain was near death. But they were determined that he survive. And thanks to their care, his health gradually improved.

Within a few months of McCain's becoming a prisoner of war, his father, Admiral Jack McCain, was appointed commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific. The North Vietnamese, sensing a propaganda prize, offered McCain early release.

But McCain refused early release, citing the code of conduct that prisoners of war should be released in the order in which they were captured. His captors demanded he accept their offer. McCain refused, over and over again. For his repeated defiance, his communist captors savagely beat him.

Before it was over, John McCain spent 5 years as a prisoner of war, two of them in solitary confinement.

This bill will essentially pay any soldier who does two to four years in the military as much or more to go to college than stay in the military.

While the retention rates right now are steady, this bill will actually offer an incentive to get out rather than stay in. The military is a hard life even in peace time and the military is run by its junior NCO's. These are the people who will be facing the decision to get out or stay in after two to four years. If they can be paid just as much to go to school as they would living in the barracks and working 70 hours weeks, which one do you think they will choose?

I think the sliding scale of the more money you get the longer you stay in capped at between six to eight years makes a lot more sense. The retention rate for ranks normally held at six years the goes way down. It gives an incentive to that senior corporal or junior sergeant to reenlist for two years and pass on his knowledge to his replacements while still gaining something for two more years of service.

I had 2 nephews graduate this year and neither of them have the money to afford a decent college. Not sure about the one nephew but the other one would have enlisted if it wasn't a one-way trip to Iraq. But this bill is a major incentive to bring in fresh troops.

And don't forget our regime has been notorious for stop-lossing people from leaving at the end of their enlistment period. So I hardly think we'll lose troops if they're being forced to stay long past their enlistment time is done.

The GI Bill is a great bill that, once this ill-conceived war is done, will bring in plenty of fresh enlistment of people looking for a way to pay for college in an economy that makes it impossible for many to attend college.

Every time a military member leaves the service, he is taking all the training, knowledge, and experience with him.

After four years, you have a decent to good NCO. That decent to good NCO will go to very good or great after another couple years. He will also pass his knowledge and training on to the new guys under his command.

If you start losing most of NCO's every year because they are leaving to go to college, then all your new recruits will not have good, experienced NCO's to learn from. Also, your Officer Corps will suffer because the Lt's won't have good strong NCO's to help them develop their practical troop leading skills and keep them from making Lt-type mistakes. You'll basically have a wet behind the ears Lt leading a bunch of wet behind the ears NCO's. Not a recipe for success.

Every critic has called this bill as a lame attempt at trying to appease the BROAD BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT that the Webb GI Bill has provided.

Here's a thought - if someone is an NCO and enjoys their military career they're going to stay in it knowing that the money is available to them when they are ready to quit. But instead you would rather force these people to serve long extended terms for a pittance of the education provided under a bill supported by only HALF of the republican party. HALF of them felt that this offering by Graham-Burr-McCain was a good alternative and most of those were the hard core right that hasn't given a fuck about our troops since day one. The studies have shown around 15% both incoming and outgoing, which btw, is about what most normal companies have. You'll have people who want to build their career and stay whereas you'll have others than feel their time is done and move on and you'll bring in fresh blood that is needed.

I find it ironic that you are probably the ONLY person on a progressive website supporting a watered down GI-Bill that is meant to force longer enlistements for lesser rewards.

That is the reality of the military. The smart, savvy, independent, leaders of tomorrow get OUT. The lifers who stay in are often afraid to go out into the real world, where every decision isn't made for you, and your paycheck and job are not guaranteed.

I'm sure many of my fellow veterans know this is true, too. We have terms for lifers, and I'm sure you're familiar with them. Are you a lifer, because you sure talk like a recruiter?

The "reality" is that many of the best ones stay for life. Believe it or not, most in the military are not there for the outstanding benefits. The vast majority are incredibly patriotic folk. The vast majority of the really good ones stay a minimum of 20 years. Some absolutely leave, but generally they aren't the best of the best. In certain fields, such as IT positions, for instance, the military has a REAL problem keeping folks. This is more due to the incredible disparity in payments, so the really good AND horrid ones may leave in those fields. But your statement that all savvy, independent leaders of tomorrow get out is simply bunk.

Collin Powell was one of the true top performers that most know about, but honestly, the ranks are filled with truly stellar folk.

BTW, in now way do I agree with the guy that said McCain's bill is the one to go with. But your statement is simply not the reality of the Military. Perhaps when morale is through the floor it is, and they've certainly had those occasions (1970s, some might say right now as well). But this is far from the norm.

Is that you, Pat Buchanan?!

:grr:

disagrees with the Graham Bill.

The Military has also come out and said that retention would be a problem with this bill, so does that mean the Generals who are in charge of maintaining the military force experiences means "Shit."

The issue comes done to whether you believe recruiting can make up for retention. My experience is that retention is extremely important. There have been times when I had to deploy with some very inexperienced Marines and we didn't have enough good NCO's to go around. This made the deployment very difficult and put some Marines in jeopardy because I had corporals leading teams that should have been lead by Sgts.

Remember, the Pentagon is lockstep with the Bush administration so of course they're going to dis the bill. And we wouldn't have a problem with retention if we weren't forcing our troops to fight an endless war and pushing them beyond the limits that a normal person can handle. Retention problem isn't caused by stuff like the Webb GI Bill - it's caused by people who have served and seen the horror of this god-awful war. And what's worse, it's put a major dent in our ability to find new recruits because who the fuck wants to join the military if they end up in this mess of a war.

I realize our military is there to protect us, hell I supported our reasons to go to Afghanistan. But instead of doing Afghanistan right we skimped on providing the troops we needed to capture bin Laden and instead stretched our military limits with a war that NEVER HAD AN EXIT STRATEGY.

I hate to disappoint you but you're it for DUers who support the Graham-Burr-McCain bill. And as I've stated, I'll support a bill that is supported by dozens of respectable military organizations in this country including the VFW and Legion. These are people that have decades of experience in the military and whose knowledge I will trust more readily than a random on a website.

The smart ones get out. The dumb ones stay in. THAT is how the military works.

You sound like the typical lifer, incapable of thinking any way except the way they tell you to think.

but I also grew up in rural Pennsylvania where money was not available for college but joining the military was. For some they did their enlistment turn, maybe a 2nd but was hoping there would be money available for school. But I do know a few that made a career of it. One close family friend had a son that made a good career as a Miliatry EMT with the Air Force.

I don't mean to be critical of you but I'm not one to judge why one makes a career of the military. However, I think we're both on the same page that the Webb Bill is a better option than anything the right-wing repukes have to offer.

It's life in a nanny state on steroids. Most people who are in the early 20s and have any snap at all want OUT of the military when their time comes. Guys who like the chickenshit, like having some rank, and don't want to face the harsh world of finding and losing jobs find a home in the military.

I'm still in the reserves and just finished a deployment as a reservist augmenting an active duty unit.

I take exception to saying "the dumb ones stay in." I worked with a lot of exceptionally bright enlisted Marines and Officers who for one reason or another decided to make the Marines a career.

If you got out to go to college, then the old policy that you're defending clearly did NOT keep you in the military. You got out, in spite of the current level of college benefits. So, your conduct suggests you don't believe the arguments you have been advancing. You got out. You went to college. You didn't stay in.

You will benefit from the Webb bill, but you're trying to convince us you don't want the extra money? I have a hard time believing that.

I was a soldier once, and when I got out, I had my GI Bill college benefits. It was a set number a month, for up to 36 months. I wanted to stretch it, so I went straight through in 24 months for my degree, and then went to law school for another 12 months with Uncle Sam paying me. That left me two years to finish with no GI bill. Of course, I worked throughout, because the GI bill was not enough to live on, only enough to get through college.

There were five veterans in my law school class of 500, and all had been great soldiers. All would agree with me regarding my comments about who stays in and who gets out.

First off, I joined after college and went right to OCS. I extended to do an second deployment and finished my time on active duty with about four and a half years. If I was given the choice to between getting out or staying in another year and a half and getting more GI Bill money, I defiantly would have considered it and possibly done it. However, if I wasn't going to get anything more out of it than a continued pay check and I knew I wasn't going to do twenty, why stay in?

I ended up getting called up as a reservist to do a third deployment and this put me at six years.

I said several times above that I benefit from the Webb Bill and will take the money. I also have enough time on active duty that I would max out on the Graham Bill, too.

I think the retention issue the military has raised is legitimate and could cause some long term problems.

Carry on.

But I still don't get how you oppose a bill that will help soldiers get a college degree, if they want to get out and get one. The reality is that some will get out, try college, hate it, and come running back to the military. Being a part of the military can be very comforting. You always have a job. You always have something fairly important to do. You're part of an organization that can do just about anything. They let you play with a billion dollars worth of equipment. There's a lot of good in the military, but it is run by some serious dickheads.

really comforting to some and you don't have to worry about a lot (in peace time). There are a LOT of dickheads.

I'm looking forward to beating McCain as much as everyone here.

or SS payments for disablity. It is not as if he is drawing wefare payments and food stamps while working or attending school. He is no longer able to perform the service he was trained to do at his rank so he is 100% not able to return to military service. I am amazed how many people on this forum do not know the difference. This subject is petty. If this is all we have to criticize him for then we are in big trouble.

but upon injuries sustained while in the service of this country. Now, given that he is married to an ultra-rich woman, could he have chosen to forgo the money? Of course, but it's really not anyone's place to judge that. For all you know, he may be donating this money to his wife's charity.

ability to function well enough to provide for oneself.

If they want to reward mccain for his service, they shouldn't call it disability but something else. Regardless of what he went through, he is fully able to provide for himself.

There are many people who have served their fellow humans in ways that are rarely seen or recognized- there are no "medals" or "parades" or salutes, but the sacrifices and suffering that they have endured are no less real, and their contributions to society no less vital. I've had the honor of knowing a few in my lifetime. And I'm tired of the way our society ignores them.

peace~

How much do the other 600 POW's recieve in Disabilty. The 600 that were released at the same time.

He paid in the maximum for a number of years, even while he was in the military and then started collecting at age 65. Either that or it is his military retirement. He was in the military for 22 years or so and I think he retired as an O-5.

That much time as a POW? As far as I'm concerned, give him the $58K. It won't get him my vote, but I have no problem with him getting the $58K.

If it were John Kerry getting the $58K, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Personally, I think $58K would be too low for anyone who went through what McCain went through, even if the recipient is a Repug.

McCain is benefitting from a government service provided to him as a disabled vet NOT as a POW. And yet there are disabled vets from this war that are not getting the health care needs and a major run around from the Bush Regime. We could probably list thousands of vets that could use that money to help them recover and take care of their families and yet our government not only does NOTHING to help our newly minted war vets but they veto them too.

we should stop helping someone who does just because he doesn't need it. I understand what you're saying and agree in principle, but I don't think we should cut off people just because others aren't being helped.

When Obama gets in, the others get helped too. In the meantime, I don't support cutting off those who deserve help, no matter how wealthy or loathsome they may be. McCain earned what he's getting, and I hope he enjoys spending it after he gets shelled in November.

However, if I were in his shoes, I'd take into consideration what you said and donate my $58K to struggling vets.

he has voted against improvements for our soldiers. Why he wasn't a leader in cleaning up Walter Reid when the atrocities of the conditions there were exposed. Why McCain felt we were being 'too generous' to our troops when it came to things like the GI Bill that yes, would cut back re-enlistment but also increase new enlistments to make up those numbers.

McCain has benefited from some good programs for our troops but does nothing to help today's trooops. I feel we have every reason to ask those questions.

Personally, I'm glad we have an issue to campaign on.

BTW, I apologize for misunderstanding your previous post. I'm babysitting a crying infant and my attention span has been reduced to just above the level of that which our CINC (Chimp-in-Chief) possesses.

I'm not here to swiftboat McCain's military career (although if it was John Kerry who was receiving this money you better believe it would have been an issue with the GOP). I just want him to answer to the hypocrisy. $58k/year is a good deal of money for most soldiers to survive on and yet most of them do not get this kind of helping hand. Why isn't McCain doing more for the troops - he is not and he should answer for that.

I don't know about you but I would suspect that someone who has served the way McCain has done so would be in the forefront of fighting for better rights fo our soldiers. But then again it's the same quizzical standard that explains Log Cabin Republicans and folks like JC Watts & Alan Keyes. Sometimes it's better to sacrifice who you are to the greater good if somehow you can profit off of it.

I spend most of my time in Crystal City, VA, where my girlfriend lives. You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a six-figure defense contractor who used to serve in the military.

I have found myself absolutely amazed how once these people get out and start getting serious coin, they tend to look after their own interests and stop giving a rat's ass about the institution that gave them the skills to get their current jobs.

McCain is no different. Absolute garbage.

Allow me to rephrase your "I don't know about you but I would suspect that someone who has served the way McCain has done so would be in the forefront of fighting for better rights fo our soldiers so as to give you my response to your question in the most effective way:

I don't know about you (actually, because of your post, I do, I'm just quoting you ;) ), but I used to believe and hope that someone who has served the way McCain has done so would be in the forefront of fighting for better rights for our soldiers - and yet because of the assholes I've met in Virginia, I now know better. Makes me fucking sick.

can't be solved with recruitment.

...and this was a very bi-partisan supported bill, the only way it could override the veto.

You can't keep sending the same tired bodies back into war over and over and over again. The GI Bill not only is a great hope for soldiers who are ending their military enlistment period but a way to bring much needed fresh troops back in.

However, Webb's Bill would cause serious retention issues within the military. If you could get out of the military after two to four years and go to college and make as much or more than you did while you were in the military, why would anyone stay in? That is what Webb's Bill does.

The soldiers, airmen, seamen, and Marines who would benefit from Webb's Bill the most are the junior enlisted who make up your NCO ranks. The NCO's run the military. Officers and SNCO's rely on NCO to get the day to day things done, while they are busy planning and doing coordination. NCO's are also the ones who your new recruits learn the most from. If they are facing the decision of staying in or getting out and there is no additional benefit to doing two more years and they can make just as much by getting out and going to school, they will get out.

When you lose your NCO's, you lose their four years of experience and leadership that they could be passing on to the PFCs and LCpl. If you can't keep a certain percentage of NCOs then the new guys are going to be learning from the guy who was there six months before them, rather than a NCO who has been around.

Graham's Bill makes a lot of sense if you have served. It ups the benefits for the longer you stay in and caps it at 6 or 8 years. This allows NCO's who are facing the choice of getting out or staying in to benefit by staying in for a couple more years by increasing their education benefits.

Which leaves you with 84% left to still do your bidding. And again the Webb bill was designed to increase new enlistments which brings in fresh blood that right now our military do desparately needs.

What I don't understand is why you are dissing a bill that received 75% of the senate vote (meaning half the republicans crossed the line to support it) over a bill that was watered down in support from a neo-con republican that has shown no interest in supporting our troops AND has created a bill that has been overwhelmingly dissed by military experts. The Graham-Burr-McCain version of the GI Bill is nothing more than a watered down version that provides less money and little incentive to help bring in fresh recruits that our military so desparately needs.

So instead of losing 50%, now we are losing 66% of first termers. That is a big increase.

The military already has a problem with not having enough experienced NCO's. Most Marine Rifle Squads are lead by Cpl's when they should be lead by Sgt. The Platoon Sgt is normally a Sgt and not a SSgt. Those NCO's are the most critical portion of the military in terms of training new recruits and helping bring up officers.

I think it makes a lot of sense to offer more benefits in the form of education assistance to stay in for two more years. In those two years, both the military and the service member benefit from the extra time.

First-this is a progressive website and in general we hold suspect anything coming from folks like Lindsey Graham, Richard Burr and John McCain - notorious right-wing republicans who have long ago shown that they really don't give a fuck about our troops other than an occasional photo-op.

Second-why in gods name is anyone going to buy the crap you're selling us? Who are you, how do we know that you are a military expert? What gives you the knowledge to back up the claims you make when there are dozens of very respected military organizations run by people with decades of military experience who fully support the Webb GI-Bill

Third- this bill was so well supported that at least 20 republican senators crossed party line to support it. That was enough to make the bill VETO proof. So even within the republican party there are republicans smart enough to know that Webb's bill was the better alternative than what Graham-Burr-McCain had to offer. And one of the biggest supporters of the Webb bill was Republican senator John Warner, who has spent a major part of his career serving in both WW2 and the Korean war as part of both the Navy and the Marines and has had decades of government experience working in Military including undersecretary of the Navy AND chair of the Senate Arms Forces committee. John Warner is one of the 3 other co-sponsors of this bill along with another republican (Chuck Hagel) and democrat Frank Lautenberg of NJ. You're telling me you question the knowledge that someone like John Warner, retired from service in the Marine, has to provide us.

Fourth-You want to deal with the retention issue then stop this damn war without end. Who wants to join the military when there is a war that has done nothing but seriously damage our troops and provide little to help acclimate these troops back to regular life. And hell if I enlisted in the military you better believe I'd want to get out as soon as possible (unless I got stop-lossed, which is how they prevent these folks from leaving).

So I'm not sure what line of bullshit was fed to you that makes you think that all these people with all this very well known military background who support the Webb GI Bill just don't have a clue, but I can almost guarantee you that you're the first and only poster here at DU buying into this MEME that Webb GI bill will hurt our troops.

Your comments are ridiculous. You keep acting as if improving the college benefits will cause significant erosion in the military reupping of first termers. That's pure horse shit. Are you trying to tell us that soldiers who want to stay in only do so because they can't get enough money to go to college and graduate?! Nonsense. Soldiers stay in if they like it, and they get out if they don't like it.

I never said that soldiers who are staying in are doing so because they can't get enough money for college.

I do think that increasing the GI Bill to the point where a soldier or sailor who has done four years and can make as much money off the GI Bill while going to school as they would in the military WILL cause a rise in first term retention. Another posters stated that studies show that it will cause an increase of 16% in the number of first termers getting out. That is one out of every six. So out of a platoon of twelve corporals who are fire teams leaders, you just lost an additional two, on top of the ones you already lost.

You've been in the Army. You know how important it is to have good experienced NCOs. Your NCO's are the life blood of the military. If you can keep them around for two more years by increasing their benefits (increasing, not withholding the whole thing), the service member and the military will both benefit from it. The service member in more money for college and the military in better trained recruits who learned from that Sgt who stuck around for two more years.

Because I haven't met one democrat who has supported the Graham-Burr-McCain bill and that includes family & friends who have served in the military. Because this bill and the one that is available now barely pays for any education even though the TV ads all say "We'll pay for college".

Clearly you're promoting a right-wing agenda that as you can see - you're the only one who supports it. I could see if this was split down the middle but when this has broad bi-partisan support from all democrats and moderate republicans (20 of them mind you) then you're supporting a team that is not a welcomed group here at DU.

You've either been brainwashed or your a republican outing yourself because you will not find one democrat here at DU, and for the most part we're all democrats, that support anything but what Webb-Hagel-Warner-Lautenberg have put together.

And personally I have more trust in a former Military Naval/Marine man who has served 2 wars, served as undersecretary of the Navy AND chair of the Senate Armed forces than I do some random idiot that shows up on DU. Yes, John Warner is a republican so that trust is limited but I know this man's history and he's one of the 4 co-sponsers of this bill. Please tell me how you are more qualified than an ex-Marine like Sen. John Warner to discuss this issue and tell ALL of DU that we are wrong about it?

I have yet to see you make a post that didn't appear to be a direct defense of McCain.

Listen, there are a lot of things to go after McCain for but the Web Bill and his disability are not two that are going to help us bet him.

Personally, I stand to gain a lot more from the Webb Bill than the Graham Bill. However, I think the Graham Bill will strengthens the military more than Webb's Bill and makes more sense.

http://www.gibill2008.org/about.html

Organizations:
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
The American Legion
The Military Officers' Association of America (MOAA)
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)
AMVETS
The Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA)
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS)
The Student Veterans of America (SVA)
The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
The Partnership for Veterans' Education
The American Council on Education (ACE)
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)
Disabled American Veterans (DAV)

____________________________________

You're telling me groups like the VFW and The American Legion don't have the best interests of our troops at heart. You're telling me you, an officer in the Marines (which we assume, this is online I'll trust you on that) is somehow a better expert at what is good for our troops than these very well respected, well known Veteran organizations that are run by decades of military experience?

Sorry, I'll stick with the organizations I know and trust. These groups have done well for my family (I come from both a father and grandfather that served in the Navy) and I'll trust their opinion before I trust some random on a website.

There is a distinct lack of free thought in the military, in general, and in the Marines, in particular. They don't think, they learn things by rote. Following orders, not thinking things out, is their strength. That is their value to our overall military component.

This guy is probably a Marine recruiter, because he's conversant with all the talking points needed to "sell" the military and defend it against the obvious vulnerabilities the Webb bill exposes.

Marine are talk to think.

I was never a recruiter and there wouldn't be enough money in the world to pay me to be one.

What are the vulnerabilities you see that the Webb Bill exposes?

You do realize, don't you, that there would be an increase in new troops due to the changes proposed?

You are a Marine, and as such, you are incapable of thinking outside the Marine mindset. We use the military for our purposes, and we don't need the military telling us how it should be run.

if he is qualified to get those payments that's the end of the story. What logic is there to say he shouldnt be getting those payments

Then why are so many of them getting the run around from our VA system, substandard care in poor equipped hospitals with unhygenic upkeep? What makes McCain more worthy of this money and yet he does nothing to help our troops today. Remember, he got that money for being disabled (which he is) not for being a POW. $58k is alot of money that hell you could split that in half and help out 2 soldiers who have been incapcitated from Iraq/Aghan war.

But personally, I'm not trying to take the money from him, I'm questioning why he isn't doing more to help those in need right now!

There are many vets who could have gotten disability payments, but wanted to pay their own way, and felt that if they could work, they were not disabled. There are many vets who have tried to get well deserved disability pay, but can't, because standards now are so harsh. This administration has started turning away seriously ill vets because of the cost. McCain is pulling down nearly $5K a month for his disability, while drawing a salary several times that. And he has full medical care. And a rich wife.

These are things ordinary voters will be shocked to learn. Don't be bothered by those here who shriek as if you shot their puppy. There are always going to be some who think it's a bad issue for us, but those people are wrong, and probably too heavily influenced by their own opinion on this matter. As a political issue, it's a no brainer for us to make it one.

Not taking away McCain's right to collect that $58k - just want to ask him why he isn't making sure that all Vets have the same access to collecting disability.

I'm not the 'me, too-er' type. But Texas Observer, you are one of the most astute members here, and IMO you haven't been wrong. Mccain's 'disability' is something most Americans don't know anything about. And the VA tries to keep Iraq veterans from getting disability.

I'm not sure how to take praise here. Condemnation seems the more common experience.

I'm not saying the Obama campaign should make it an issue, but our friends in the media who like to obsess over such things should. I believe there is a good 5% of the population out there who WILL be offended when they found this stuff out about McCain, and they can tip the election. Those who will defend McCain on this matter are not our concern. We are looking for that 5% that it will impact and offend.

The sad truth is those kind of people decide most elections.

first of all mccain has restricted use of his arm so he is obviously qualified and entitled to disability payments and really thats the end of the story unless you have evidence of any illegal activity

second getting the run around from the VA bureaucracy doesnt neccesrily mean the vet is not getting a check from the VA

but bottom line unless there is something illegal its a dumb line of attack especially for the obama campaign

I hadn't realized he qualified as a disabled American though. I wonder how many know this.

I guess I was "technically" disabled. I was given a 10% disability for asthma, of all things, because I didn't have it when I enlisted but I did when I got out, and it was listed as "service connected" because of my length of time in service.
It wasn't even bad asthma but I got a check for about seventy bucks every month. All I needed to keep this going on was to make a biannual visit to the VA clinic for a check-up. I collected it for about a year then forfeited it because it just didn't seem right to collect for something like that, and hell...I knew I wasn't disabled. I was working. I was making damn near 20 thousand a year!
I guess I was just raised differently from McCain.

He also was an amateur boxer...He was drafted into WW 11 and got shrapnel in the eye in the Battle Of Sicily...That ended all that...He spent six months in Walter Reed...They did six operations...The could cosmetically save the eye but not the sight...He received a whopping thirty perecent disability...

My friend's dad was 100% disabled from the war but he was able to hold down a full time job for Ford...He also got a sweet pension from them...

It's a benefit not a welfare program... McSame did get messed up...He can't even comb his own hair because the North VietNameze never set his broken arms and shoulders...Ouch...

attitude to other GI's with disabilities.

One, as a sitting senator he clearly doesn't need the $58,000. Plus, he won't vote to give current veterans decent benefits.

Two, McSame is running around the country campaigning for office but there are men and women coming back from this god-awful war, which he voted for and continues to tout as though it's going well, cannot get anywhere near what McLame's getting despite the fact that they cannot work at all. This administration is trying to push people out on 30% disability because at 30% or less it's a one time payment and they don't have to do a bloody thing afterwards. And McLame campaigns with a 100% tax free disability check every month.

Absolutely disgraceful!

Regards

against giving benefits to others.

I think we already know the answer - it will be similar to his Katrina answer. "I will do everything in my power to give Veterans the Benefits they deserve (except voting to give them the benefits they deserve, of course)."

Over on Vincent and Morticia's Speakeasy, one of the members, Le Roi Dong, has worked for the Democratic party for years. I've always thought he does opposition research. He told us about McCain's disability pension long ago. Here is one topic in which we were re-discussing it:

http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/reply/32972/t/John-McCain.html#reply-32972

I think it is unethical for McCain to accept a disability pension even if he is technically entitled to it. He has taken advantage of every opportunity in front of him in order to become a wealthy man. He also does work and had worked to make a living. Disability is actually intended to support those who are injured and cannot support themselves.

That McCain keeps taking that money is repulsive! I wonder if McCain's disability is mental? *shudder* (I guess it is his arm, though.)

My friend's husband gets disability (non-military) because he has extreme difficulties holding a job due to blood clot issues that he has (it's pretty severe) and the medical costs have burdened their family even with insurance. Disability is a major bonus because it covers his medical costs. She works the 9-5 job while he stays home and takes care of the house and watches the kids when they get home from school. He does have mobility but needs to take regular breaks to work the legs out.

He is a legit reason to have disability. There are others on disability that can work but may have limited capacity to hold a job or work a job with benefits so the disability helps.

I realize that McCain is entitled to disability and I guess ultimately I cannot question his right to collect it despite being a US Senator with one of the most amazing health care plans he has for LIFE plus being married to an extremely wealthy person.

But the least he could do is make sure that all soldiers have that same type of access to disability. But then again if we had single-payer healthcare this wouldn't be an issue.